This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the confirmation of removal from service. The court held that the petitioner's failure to explain the charges amounted to an admission, rendering the disciplinary findings correct and undisturbable.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.03.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
W.P.No.16910 of 2009
J.Anbuchezhiyan ... Petitioner
Vs
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent herein in RC No.100/PR N(2)/ 2006 dated 31.10.2007 and the subsequent proceedings of the second respondent herein in RC No.P.R.No.(2)/Appeal 21/07 dated 17.12.2007 and the subsequent proceeding of the first respondent herein in C.No.06540/AP 3(3)/2008 dated 26.03.2008, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all service and monetary benefits.
(Prayer amended as per order dated 27.02.2018 in W.M.P.No.3806 of 2018 in W.P.No.16910 of 2009).
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.K.Ravikumar Additional Govt.Pleader ORDER
This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 31.10.2007 passed by the third respondent, imposing a punishment of removal from service for the proven charges, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority, the second respondent herein by order dated
17.12.2007, which has been again confirmed by the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein, in his order dated 26.03.2008.
2.The petitioner joined the Police Department as Grade II Police Constable on 25.10.1984 and promoted as Grade-I Constable in the year 1998. While he was serving in N4-Fishing Harbour Police Station, he was served with a charge memo dated 23.11.1996 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, imposing the following charges:
“ePh; 21/08/06 md;W Kjy; vz;/1 ,uhag[uk; fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F O.Dgzpahf mDg;gg;gl;lth;/ ,th; mof;fo kPd;gpo JiuKfk; brd;W Fg;gd; @ brhhpFg;gd;. uh$d; kw;Wk; r';fh; Mfpath;fsplk; mth;fs; fg;gypy;; epyf;fhp bfhs;isaoj;J tUtjha; kpul;o U/100--. 50-- vd khKy; th';Ftjhfa[k;. khKy; jutpy;iy vd;why; mth;fsJ ghf;bfl;oy; iftpl;L gzj;ij vLj;Jf;bfhs;tJk; thof;ifahdJ vd;Wk; gzk; ,y;iy vd;why; jfhj thh;j;ijfshy; mth;fis ngrpa[k; fz;zpakpf;f fhty; Jiwf;F fs';fj;ij Vw;gLj;JtJk; kpft[k; fz;of;fjf;fjhFk;/
2/ 08/09/2006 md;W kjpak; Rkhh; 01/30 kzpf;F Kh;j;jp vd;gth; AP 04 T 2229 vd;w yhhpapd; oiuth; ucwPd; ghc&h vd;gtUld; kPd;gpo JiwKfj;jpy; ,Ue;J epyf;fhp Vw;wp tUk; nghJ yhhpia klf;fp khKyhf U.100bgw;Wf;bfhz;L mJ nghjhJ vd;W mth;fsplk; U/500- y";rkhf nfl;L juhjjhy; mth;fis jfhj thh;j;ijfs; ngrpa[k;. epyf;fhpa[ld; cs;s yhhp AP 04 T 2229 cld;. ,ut[ 22/45 kzpf;F kPd;gpo JiwKf fhty; epiyaj;jpy; jdp mwpf;ifa[ld; M$h; Mdhh;/ mjd; nghpy; N4 kPd;gpo JiwKf fhty; epiyaj;jpy; F/vz;/1942006 U/s.41 CI(11) r/w 102 CRPC apd; go tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ ,t;thW gzj;jpw;fhfnt bghJ kf;fsplk; mj;JkPwp ele;Jk;. kpul;oa[k; mof;fo kPd;gpo JiwKf gFjpapy; ele;Jf; bfhs;tJk;. Fwpg;ghf 08/07/2006 md;W ele;J fz;zpak; kpf;f fhty;Jiwf;F fs';fk; Vw;gLj;jpaJk; fz;of;f jf;f Fw;wkhFk;/”
3.Peculiarly, the petitioner having received the charge memo, had remained silent without giving any explanation to the charges. On the basis of the minutes drawn by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range of Chennai Police, holding both the charges as proved, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet, Chennai, the third respondent herein, issued an order dated 31.10.2007 awarding a punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone, Perambur, Chennai, the second respondent herein. The Joint Commissioner of Police, after perusing the charges issued against the petitioner and the minutes drawn by the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Pulianthope Range of Chennai Police proving both the charges as established, agreed with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police, Washermenpet, Chennai, and confirmed the order of punishment of removal from service and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition dated 28.12.2007 before the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, the first respondent herein, who also after going through the records carefully, taking note of the fact that the petitioner has committed serious delinquencies, confirmed the orders passed by both the respondents 3 and 2.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Enquiry Officer, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range of Chennai Police, ought not to have accepted the evidence deposed by P.W.2 and equally the evidence adduced by P.W.1, since P.W.1 had acted to victimise the petitioner by extracting certain false information from P.W.2 and a case was put up against the petitioner.
5.This Court has also heard the learned Additional Govt.Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6.A perusal of the aforementioned two charges show that the petitioner should have immediately submitted his detailed explanation refuting each and every charge in the charge memo as false, but for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner has not given any reasons refuting the charges. This shows that the petitioner was neither willing nor having any justification or any valid ground to give explanation. This has been categorically indicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range of Chennai Police, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer. May be for the reason that the petitioner had not come forward to deny the charges by way of giving explanation, the disciplinary authority, the third respondent herein, had no option except to accept the charges of the Enquiry Officer and this has been correctly considered by the Joint Commissioner of Police, the second respondent herein. The Director General of Police, while entertaining the mercy petition, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had not come forward to deny the charges, confirmed the orders passed by the second and third respondents. It is also seen that the petitioner was also charged with five more punishments, based on which he was imposed with the punishment of removal from service.
7.Once a delinquent has failed to give his explanations to the charge memo, then it shows that he has admitted the charges, for, he has not denied it. Based on no denial, if a finding is reached, it is not open to the same delinquent to dispute the said finding. In the present case, the petitioner / delinquent has not given his explanations denying the charges levelled against him. Therefore, I do not find any error or infirmity in
the minutes drawn by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range of Chennai Police, which led to passing of the order of removal.
8.In view of the above stated circumstances, this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
KM
To
1. The Director General of Police
Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
North Zone, Perambur
Chennai-600 011.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Washermenpet, Chennai.
+1 cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.21539
W.P.No.16910 of 2009
SKV(CO)
SSM(03/04/2019).
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the confirmed orders of removal from service where the petitioner failed to file any explanation against the charges.
Whether the decision of the disciplinary authorities based on the admitted silence of the delinquent regarding the charges is legally supportable.
Whether there is any infirmity in the minutes drawn by the Enquiry Officer justifying quashing of the punishment order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
J. Anchuzhiyan
Director General of Police Mylapore
Joint Commissioner of Police, North Zone
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Washermenpet
T. Raja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
